Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 177

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Toward a protein profile of Escherichia coli : Comparison to its transcription profile

Open access
Corbin, Rebecca W., Paliy, Oleg, Yang, Feng, Shabanowitz, Jeffrey, Platt, Mark, Lyons, Charles E., Root, Karen, McAuliffe, Jon, Jordan, Michael I., Kustu, Sydney, Soupene, Eric, Hunt, Donald F.·2003·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

High-pressure liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry was used to obtain a protein profile of Escherichia coli strain MG1655 grown in minimal medium with glycerol as the carbon source. By using cell lysate from only 3 × 10 8 cells, at least four different tryptic peptides were detected for each of 404 proteins in a short 4-h experiment. At least one peptide with a high reliability score was detected for 986 proteins. Because membrane proteins were underrepresented, a second experiment was performed with a preparation enriched in membranes. An additional 161 proteins were detected, of which from half to two-thirds were membrane proteins. Overall, 1,147 different E. coli proteins were identified, almost 4 times as many as had been identified previously by using other tools. The protein list was compared with the transcription profile obtained on Affymetrix GeneChips. Expression of 1,113 (97%) of the genes whose protein products were found was detected at the mRNA level. The arithmetic mean mRNA signal intensity for these genes was 3-fold higher than that for all 4,300 protein-coding genes of E. coli . Thus, GeneChip data confirmed the high reliability of the protein list, which contains about one-fourth of the proteins of E. coli . Detection of even those membrane proteins and proteins of undefined function that are encoded by the same operons (transcriptional units) encoding proteins on the list remained low.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1533294100

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 177

Metadata

Authors
Corbin, R. W., Paliy, O., Yang, F., Shabanowitz, J., Platt, M., Lyons, C. E., Root, K., McAuliffe, J., Jordan, M. I., Kustu, S., Soupene, E., & Hunt, D. F.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2003-07-23
Volume
100
Issue
16
Pages
9232-9237
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2129617994
Cited by
177
References
2
FWCI
8.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Toward a protein profile of Escherichia coli : Comparison to its transcription profile. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.1533294100
The paper
Corbin, R. W., Paliy, O., Yang, F., Shabanowitz, J., Platt, M., Lyons, C. E., Root, K., McAuliffe, J., Jordan, M. I., Kustu, S., Soupene, E., & Hunt, D. F. (2003). Toward a protein profile of Escherichia coli : Comparison to its transcription profile. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1533294100

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.